pcs_cluster_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the underlying command and the state items the agent can expect. However, it does not mention connection/auth behavior, sudo usage, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, though 'displays' and 'status' imply a non-mutating check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence contributes useful information about the output scope and appropriate use case.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's core read-only purpose and the cluster state information returned. However, with no output schema and no annotations, return format, error behavior, and connection prerequisites remain unspecified, and the large undocumented parameter set leaves notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is very low (11%), with only `cluster` documented, and the description adds nothing about any of the 9 parameters. Connection-related parameters such as host, username, password, privateKeyPath, and timeoutMs are left unexplained, so the low schema coverage is not compensated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the specific action ('Displays high-level cluster state'), the exact command used (`pcs cluster status`), and the key areas covered (Pacemaker, node membership, fencing/stonith, manager health). This makes the tool's focus clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `pcs_status` or `pcs_status_full`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear intended use case: 'quick health checks.' The phrase 'high-level cluster state' also implies it is not intended for detailed resource or node inspection, but it does not name alternatives or state explicit exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.